[Advaita-l] GYAnimAtra and the sthitapraGYa (was Re: FW: Avidya, Jnanis and SSS' views)

[S Jayanarayanan]

--- On Sun, 5/9/10, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 11:53 PM, S
> Jayanarayanan <sjayana at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 

[..]

> > You have said above that Videhamukti is "liberation
> after death", and yet
> > you want to confer this status on YAGYavalkya the
> moment he attained to
> > saMyagGYAna, which was during his life!

[..]

> That is the general translation of the term 'videha
> mukti'. 

And it is so according to VidyAraNya as well (page 40 of translation by Swami Moksadananda):

  atha videhamuktalakshaNam .

  "Now about the Videhamukta:"


  jIvanmuktapadaM tyaktvA svadehe kAlasAtkR^ite .
  vishatyadehamuktatvaM pavano.aspandatAm iva || [LYV 5.98]

  "VasiShTha: "When the life expires the body dissolves and giving
  up the state of jIvanmukta. He enters the state of
  Liberation after the disembodiment, just like the wind
  becomes motionless." [LYV 5.98]"


  yathA vAyuH kadAchichchalanaM tyaktvA svarUpeNAvatishhThate,
  tathA mukto.apyupAdhikR^itaM saMsAraM tyaktvA svarUpeNAvatishhThate .

  "As the wind sometimes stops blowing and comes to a calm, motionless
  state, similarly the liberated soul also leaving this world made
  of the limiting adjuncts remains in its own form."


It is clear that the DEFINITION of "Videha-mukti" requires the dissolution of the present body, as VidyAraNya explicitly says so above. This occurs right in the first chapter, where all the definitions of the various terms are being covered, and the introductory line above, "atha videhamuktalakshaNam" indicates that this is in fact the right sense of the term "Videha-mukti", requiring the dissolution of the present body, which I will refer to as "Videha-mukti-original".

> However, Sri
> Vidyaranya has deliberated much on this and concluded that
> for him 'videha
> mukti' means 'the state that ensures, even now, that a
> future body will not
> ensue'. 

Here's the reference (page 98, ibid):

  videhamuktiH ityatratyena dehashabdena kR^itsnaM
  dehajAtaM vivakShitatvA bahubhirvarNitam.h .
  asmAbhistu bhAvidehamAtravivakshayochyate
  tadanArambhAyaiva GYAnasaMpAdanAt .

  "By the word body - deha - occurring in the compound word
  "videhamukti", many are of the opinion that all kinds of bodies are
  implied collectively. But we have used it from the standpoint of
  the future ones alone. For knowledge is accomplished in order to
  secure non-occurrence of that."


Now, VidyAraNya says that he is, in that specific occasion, using the word "deha" to refer only to future bodies, excluding the present body. This is to clarify his stance in this context, because he has himself previously provided the definition of Videha-mukti to include the dissolution of the present body.

In order to distinguish this term from "Videha-mukti-original", I will refer to it as "Videha-mukti-alternative".

Now, it seems that when you say "the GYAnimAtra is a mukta", you are referring to "mukti" ONLY in the sense of "Videha-mukti-alternative" -- NEITHER in the sense of Jivanmukti (which requires vAsanAkShaya-manonAsha) NOR in the sense of Videha-mukti-original (which requires dissolution of the present body).

I personally do NOT agree that the title "mukta" (without qualifications) can be given to the GYAnimAtra (who is living, has attained to saMyagGYAna, but has not yet accomplished vAsanAkShaya-manonAsha), merely by leaning on the special term "Videha-mukti-alternative". Here are the (at least two) reasons why.

1) The term "mukta" without qualifications occurs more than once in the LYV, as quoted by VidyAraNya (page 176, ibid):

  hRRidayAt samparityajya sarvameva mahAmatiH .
  yastishhThati gatavyagraH sa muktaH parameshvaraH .. [LYV 18.26]
  samAdhim atha karmANi mA karotu karotu vA .
  hRRidayenAstasarvAsho mukta evottamAshayaH .. [LYV 18.27]
  naishhkarmyeNa na tasyArthastasyAtho.asti na karmabhiH .
  na samAdhAnajapyAbhyAM yasya nirvAsanaM manaH .. [LYV 18.28]

  "He, the man of vase intelligence, who does away with all (desires)
  from the mind and remains devoid of agitation, is liberated (sa muktaH),
  and he is the supreme lord."
  "He, the great soul, whose heart is free from all expectations, and who
  is noble-minded, is indeed free whether he performs or performs not
  concentration (samAdhi) or rituals."
  "He, whose mind is desireless (nirvAsanaM manaH), has no concern
  with the performance of or refraining from acts, nor is he in need
  of concentration (samAdhi) or muttered prayer (japa)."

In the set of above verses taken together, note that the person who is referred to as "muktaH" is one with "nirvAsanam manaH" - one with no vAsanAs.

Hence the term "MUKTA" WITHOUT QUALIFICATIONS ASSUMES one who has undergone vAsanAkShya!

Besides, this is the correct understanding of the term "mukta" (without qualifications), which is agreed upon by both the VivekachUDAmaNi verse "muktiM prAhustadiha munayo vAsanAtAnavaM yat.h", where mukti (without qualifications) again requires vAsanAtAnavaM or the attenuation of vAsanAs.


2) VidyAraNya writes (page 87, ibid):

  mumukShoH purushhasya jIvanmuktirvidehamuktishcheti
  prayojanadvayam . ata eva "vimuktashcha vimuchyata"
  [KU 2.2.1] iti shrUyate .

  "The person who is seeking liberation (mumukShu) needs both
  jIvanmukti and Videhamukti. For this the shruti has it thus:
  'First liberated from ignorance while still alive, is again
  freed on disembodiment." [KU 2.2.1]


Please note that when VidyAraNya uses the word "Moksha" (or "Mukti" without qualifications), he says that it requires BOTH jIvanmukti and Videhamukti, and that the **suffering of the present body should also cease for it to be called "mukti" (WITHOUT QUALIFICATIONS)**. The above verse CANNOT be explained away by an appeal only to "Videha-mukti-alternative".


Hence I do not agree that the unqualified term "mukta" can be used as an equivalent to the very, very special term "Videha-mukti-alternative".

Hope at least this explains my standpoint!!

Regards,
Kartik